What's your opinion on using UUIDs as database row identifiers, particularly in web apps?

I've always preferred to use long integers as primary keys in databases, for simplicity and (assumed) speed. But when using a [REST][1] or Rails-like URL scheme for object instances, I'd then end up with URLs like this:

[To see links please register here]

And then the assumption is that there are also users with IDs of 782, 781, ..., 2, and 1. Assuming that the web app in question is secure enough to prevent people entering other numbers to view other users without authorization, a simple sequentially-assigned surrogate key also "leaks" the total number of instances (older than this one), in this case users, which might be privileged information. (For instance, I am user #726 in stackoverflow.)

Would a [UUID][2]/GUID be a better solution? Then I could set up URLs like this:

[To see links please register here]

Not exactly succinct, but there's less implied information about users on display. Sure, it smacks of "security through obscurity" which is no substitute for proper security, but it seems at least a little more secure.

Is that benefit worth the cost and complexity of implementing UUIDs for web-addressable object instances? I think that I'd still want to use integer columns as database PKs just to speed up joins.

There's also the question of in-database representation of UUIDs. I know MySQL stores them as 36-character strings. Postgres seems to have a more efficient internal representation (128 bits?) but I haven't tried it myself. Anyone have any experience with this?

---

Update: for those who asked about just using the user name in the URL (e.g.,

[To see links please register here]

), that works fine for object instances with names that are unique, but what about the zillions of web app objects that can really only be identified by number? Orders, transactions, invoices, duplicate image names, stackoverflow questions, ...


[1]:

[To see links please register here]

[2]:

[To see links please register here]

I work with a student management system which uses UUID's in the form of an integer. They have a table which hold the next unique ID.

Although this is probably a good idea for an architectural point of view, it makes working with on a daily basis difficult. Sometimes there is a need to do bulk inserts and having a UUID makes this very difficult, usually requiring writing a cursor instead of a simple SELECT INTO statement.

I can't say about the web side of your question. But uuids are great for n-tier applications. PK generation can be decentralized: each client generates it's own pk without risk of collision.
And the speed difference is generally small.

Make sure your database supports an efficient storage datatype (16 bytes, 128 bits).
At the very least you can encode the uuid string in base64 and use char(22).

I've used them extensively with Firebird and do recommend.

I can answer you that in SQL server if you use a uniqueidentifier (GUID) datatype and use the NEWID() function to create values you will get horrible fragmentation because of page splits. The reason is that when using NEWID() the value generated is not sequential. SQL 2005 added the NEWSEQUANTIAL() function to remedy that

One way to still use GUID and int is to have a guid and an int in a table so that the guid maps to the int. the guid is used externally but the int internally in the DB

for example

457180FB-C2EA-48DF-8BEF-458573DA1C10 1
9A70FF3C-B7DA-4593-93AE-4A8945943C8A 2

1 and 2 will be used in joins and the guids in the web app. This table will be pretty narrow and should be pretty fast to query

I don't think a GUID gives you many benefits. Users hate long, incomprehensible URLs.

Create a shorter ID that you can map to the URL, or enforce a unique user name convention (

[To see links please register here]

). The guys at [37Signals][1] would probably mock you for worrying about something like this when it comes to a web app.

Incidentally you can force your database to start creating integer IDs from a base value.

[1]:

[To see links please register here]

For what it's worth, I've seen a long running stored procedure (9+ seconds) drop to just a few hundred milliseconds of run time simply by switching from GUID primary keys to integers. That's not to say *displaying* a GUID is a bad idea, but as others have pointed out, joining on them, and indexing them, by definition, is not going to be anywhere near as fast as with integers.

Rather than URLs like this:

[To see links please register here]

Why not have:

[To see links please register here]

Which is friendlier to humans and doesn't leak that tiny bit of information?

You could use an integer which is related to the row number but is not sequential. For example, you could take the 32 bits of the sequential ID and rearrange them with a fixed scheme (for example, bit 1 becomes bit 6, bit 2 becomes bit 15, etc..).
This will be a bidirectional encryption, and you will be sure that two different IDs will always have different encryptions.
It would obviously be easy to decode, if one takes the time to generate enough IDs and get the schema, but, if I understand correctly your problem, you just want to not give away information too easily.

I think that this is one of these issues that cause quasi-religious debates, and its almost futile to talk about. I would just say use what you prefer. In 99% of systems it will no matter which type of key you use, so the benefits (stated in the other posts) of using one sort over the other will never be an issue.

We use GUIDs as primary keys for all our tables as it doubles as the RowGUID for MS SQL Server Replication. Makes it very easy when the client suddenly opens an office in another part of the world...